While I might not be as quick as jbash to suspect the worst in this case, there's enough community experience around here with vague commitments to "openness" proving in the end to be, basically, lies, that it pays us to be cautious. It might behoove the folks at nanoTITAN (who comes up with these names anyway?) to be a bit more explicit about their IP intentions.

In particular, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the ways I see XML being used, with companies trying to use copyright to a DTD as a lever to assert IP control over data expressed using that DTD, for example claiming that anyone who produces software that reads or writes that data format owes you a license fee (essentially, claiming that because you wrote a grammar, you are entitled to some form of rights to all sentences written in that grammar). A direct disclaimer of any such intentions would be a good thing here.

I'll register for your "early access" program, and give you my real name, just as soon as you post the names and contact information for your officers and principal investors on your Web site.

… and I'll think about contributing to improving your product as soon as you legally bind yourselves to make those contributions available to the public, forever, without charge. Vague assurances about "open standards" (whatever that means) don't count.

If you're not prepared to do that, I'm afraid you're going to have to pay for consulting like everybody else.